PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the appellant. I, however, examined the case and I am of the view that the compensation assessed already is required to be revised. The case was filed at the instance of the widow of Joginder Singh, who admittedly, had been travelling in the first respondent's auto rickshaw when the accident had taken place on 29.12.1994. As per the appellant's version, the deceased was travelling along with his brother and the vehicle was driven by the auto rickshaw driver in a rash and negligent manner. The driver had attempted to save the vehicle from being hit against a cow that was crossing the road and had capsized resulting in very serious injuries to the passengers in the auto rickshaw. It was in evidence that the appellant's husband had fracture in both his legs, shoulder and jaw and he remained in hospital for 6 -7 months. He ultimately died. The Tribunal found that the accident was inevitable and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - on no fault basis under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) I find the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal to be erroneous. An auto rickshaw that capsizes in the attempt of the driver to save a cow crossing the road cannot put his own passengers at greater peril than the safety that he minds for a cow. This is not to say that he can be rash to kill crossing animals but he ought to give equal application of care in his driving that does not result in the vehicle turning turtle and exposing the passengers to serious injuries. The Tribunal while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - did not say that the death was not on account of accident. On the other hand, it has held that negligence had not been established. I reverse the finding and hold the driver to be wholly responsible for the accident and the same would not have arisen if he had been careful in his driving.